|
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a
performance audit of the Department of Public Safety’s
Criminal Investigations Division as part of a Sunset review of
the agency. This audit was conducted pursuant to a June 16,
1999, resolution of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. This
audit was conducted under the authority vested in the Auditor
General by Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §41-2951 et seq.
This is the seventh in a series of nine audits of the Department
of Public Safety (DPS). The other areas audited include DPS’
Aviation Section (Report No. 00-7), Scientific Analysis Bureau
(Report No. 00-12), Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program
(Report No. 01-3), Telecommunications Bureau (Report No. 01-5),
Licensing Bureau (Report No. 01-10), and Highway Patrol Division
(01-20). The remaining audits will cover the Criminal
Information Services and Fingerprint Identification Bureaus and
the agency-wide Sunset Factors.
The
Criminal Investigations Division provides statewide
investigative, specialized enforcement, and high-risk response
support to federal, state, and local criminal justice agencies.
Some of the specific activities undertaken by the Division’s
396 authorized personnel include conducting investigations
involving narcotics trafficking, organized crime, vehicle theft,
gangs, and computer and financial crimes; enforcing state drug
and liquor laws; collecting, analyzing, and disseminating
criminal intelligence information to law enforcement personnel;
protecting the Governor and her family; apprehending fugitives;
and responding to high-risk situations involving explosives and
violence. To achieve statewide coverage, Division personnel are
assigned to more than 50 squads and multi-agency task forces
located throughout Arizona.
The
Division Lacks Formal
Evaluation Processes for
Task Force Participation
(See pages 9 through 18)
The
Division needs to formalize its processes for determining
participation on multi-agency task forces. The number of task
forces the Division participates on has nearly doubled in the
past ten years, and a significant percentage of the Division’s
resources are dedicated to such endeavors. Specifically, in
fiscal year 2001, the Division committed 52 percent of its sworn
officers and $10.9 million to 28 multi-agency task forces. The
level of Division resources committed to task forces heightens
the need to formally evaluate whether commitments to new task
forces are in the Division’s and the State’s best interest.
In addition, law enforcement accreditation standards recommend a
formalized process that would include a documented evaluation of
such things as level of criminal activity, the task force’s
mission and goals, and the projected costs and benefits of
participation.
The
Division also lacks written orders or policies that specifically
address how DPS officers assigned to task forces should be
supervised. While the Division does have general supervision
procedures that apply to all staff, these procedures are
inadequate for addressing the task force investigators who work
on projects that generally are administered and controlled by
other agencies.
Finally,
the Division lacks adequate management information on the task
forces to evaluate the benefits of continued participation. The
National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and
Goals determined that special units tend to be self-perpetuating
if no formal periodic review is conducted. Some of the task
forces on which the Division is participating have been
operating for nearly 20 years; however, the Division has no
formal process for evaluating the appropriateness of continued
participation.
The
Division Needs to Improve
Its Case Management Practices
(See pages 19 through 27)
The
Division still needs to improve its case management practices
even though it has taken steps to address a similar finding in
an Auditor General report issued almost ten years ago. First,
the Division continues to accept cases without considering if
they are the best use of investigative resources. A 1992 audit
report (Report No. 92-6) indicated that the Division did not
have sufficient guidelines to help its officers determine
whether a case was worth pursuing. As a result, the Division
implemented a policy that requires all cases to be opened by a
supervisor to ensure the case is worthy of initiation. However,
most supervisors of Division squads still do not use specific
criteria to decide whether to open a case. Further, some
supervisors believe they cannot decline a case requested by
another law enforcement agency because the Division and local
law enforcement agencies have interpreted DPS’ enabling
statutes as a mandate to assist other law enforcement agencies
in all crime areas. Because DPS does not have unlimited
resources, it needs to develop case-screening procedures that
will allow it to balance the requests of local agencies with
statewide enforcement needs and priorities.
In
addition to insufficient case screening, the Division has not
ensured that its case oversight procedures are being adequately
followed. In the previous audit, it was found that once a case
was opened, the Division had no mechanism to determine if it
warranted continuation and could not ensure that its
investigators’ time was spent effectively. Although the
Division now requires supervisors to review active cases every
30 days, many cases are still not being reviewed in a timely
manner. In addition, although the Division developed policies
and procedures addressing the proper documentation and storage
of investigative case reports and files, problems in these areas
continue.
Finally,
the Division continues to lack critical case management
information necessary to report on and assess its activities and
ensure that it is effectively using its resources. The
Division’s case management system lacks complete and accurate
information.
Some investigators have historically not entered case
information into the system. In addition, the system’s
programming precludes the tracking of complete information for
cases initiated by other agencies on which Division personnel
participate. The Division has indicated that it is in the
process of identifying a new system and the necessary funding to
implement it, in hopes of addressing these case management
problems. However, without regular training and proper
procedures, these problems will continue even under a new
system.
Read full report in Acrobat PDF format
|
